Climate Voting in Washington State

Author
Affiliation

Tiernan Martin

Futurewise

Abstract

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer felis erat, mattis eget eros ac, consequat dictum ex. In condimentum, nibh a eleifend laoreet, magna.

Keywords

Climate

1 Introduction

2 Data & Methods

2.1 Data Sources

  • Voting Precinct Shapefiles: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/reports-data-and-statistics/precinct-shapefiles
  • Election Results: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/election-results-and-voters-pamphlets
  • American Community Survey: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html
  • 2017 Local Area Transportation Characteristics for Households https://www.bts.gov/latch/latch-data

2.2 Data

Rows: 1,454
Columns: 5
Rowwise: 
$ geoid           <chr> "53001950200", "53005010600", "53005010902", "53007960…
$ hh_vmt          <dbl> 49.22, 39.50, 36.03, 52.59, 39.31, 31.31, 40.17, 57.66…
$ vote_rep_pct    <dbl> 77.975856, 52.493079, 57.784743, 62.749887, 53.021292,…
$ vote_i0732n_pct <dbl> 78.69265, 65.03399, 71.65084, 72.74983, 65.13168, 60.5…
$ geometry        <GEOMETRY [m]> POLYGON ((-3507230 8109216,..., POLYGON ((-35…
Source: Article Notebook
Data summary
Name model_data_skim
Number of rows 1431
Number of columns 4
_______________________
Column type frequency:
character 1
numeric 3
________________________
Group variables None

Variable type: character

skim_variable n_missing complete_rate min max empty n_unique whitespace
geoid 0 1 11 11 0 1431 0

Variable type: numeric

skim_variable n_missing complete_rate mean sd p0 p25 p50 p75 p100 hist
hh_vmt 0 1 41.36 8.28 13.48 35.78 41.36 47.48 61.76 ▁▂▇▇▂
vote_rep_pct 0 1 39.22 16.51 2.15 27.66 40.49 50.94 81.60 ▃▆▇▅▁
vote_i0732n_pct 0 1 59.71 11.28 23.45 53.13 61.15 67.67 87.60 ▁▂▇▇▂
Source: Article Notebook
Figure 2
Source: Article Notebook
Figure 3
Source: Article Notebook
Figure 4
Source: Article Notebook

2.3 Models

2.3.1 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)

OLS linear regression model:

Parameter    | Coefficient |       SE |         95% CI | t(1428) |      p
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Intercept)  |       28.86 |     0.42 | [28.05, 29.68] |   69.36 | < .001
hh vmt       |        0.16 |     0.01 | [ 0.14,  0.18] |   14.52 | < .001
vote rep pct |        0.61 | 5.62e-03 | [ 0.60,  0.63] |  109.46 | < .001
Source: Article Notebook

Linear model assumption checks:

Spatial Autocorrelation check (Moran I test):


    Moran I test under randomisation

data:  residuals(model_lm)  
weights: model_spatial_weights  
n reduced by no-neighbour observations  

Moran I statistic standard deviate = 29.982, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: greater
sample estimates:
Moran I statistic       Expectation          Variance 
     0.4884553310     -0.0007007708      0.0002661758 
Source: Article Notebook

2.3.2 Spatially Lagged Regression


Call:
lagsarlm(formula = model_lm, data = model_data, listw = model_spatial_weights, 
    zero.policy = TRUE)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-19.7908  -1.6062   0.1467   1.8119  18.9670 

Type: lag 
Regions with no neighbours included:
 523 1102 1253 
Coefficients: (asymptotic standard errors) 
              Estimate Std. Error z value  Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)  19.340830   0.681397  28.384 < 2.2e-16
hh_vmt        0.151437   0.010106  14.984 < 2.2e-16
vote_rep_pct  0.454746   0.010966  41.468 < 2.2e-16

Rho: 0.27185, LR test value: 276.53, p-value: < 2.22e-16
Asymptotic standard error: 0.016331
    z-value: 16.646, p-value: < 2.22e-16
Wald statistic: 277.09, p-value: < 2.22e-16

Log likelihood: -3504.669 for lag model
ML residual variance (sigma squared): 7.7375, (sigma: 2.7816)
Nagelkerke pseudo-R-squared: 0.93831 
Number of observations: 1431 
Number of parameters estimated: 5 
AIC: 7019.3, (AIC for lm: 7293.9)
LM test for residual autocorrelation
test value: 405.56, p-value: < 2.22e-16
Source: Article Notebook

Parameter comparison: OLS vs Spatial Lag

Parameter    |             model_lm |    model_spatial_lag
----------------------------------------------------------
(Intercept)  | 28.86 (28.05, 29.68) | 19.34 (18.01, 20.68)
hh vmt       |  0.16 ( 0.14,  0.18) |  0.15 ( 0.13,  0.17)
vote rep pct |  0.61 ( 0.60,  0.63) |  0.45 ( 0.43,  0.48)
rho          |                      |  0.27 ( 0.24,  0.30)
----------------------------------------------------------
Observations |                 1431 |                     
Source: Article Notebook

Comparison of Adjusted R2/Pseudo Adjusted R2: OLS vs Spatial Lag

# A tibble: 1 × 2
     lm spatial_lag
  <dbl>       <dbl>
1 0.925       0.938
Source: Article Notebook

Spatially lagged regression model residuals:

Source: Article Notebook

2.4 Methodology Notes

  • Income should not be included in our regression because it is used in the model that estimates household VMT (see LATCH Methodology p. 10)